Those who claim a simple and direct divine intervention fail to consider the fact that God in His interactions with creations behaves in a much more subtle and secret manner.

Creation, in contrast to previous thoughts, is not something static but is a dynamic process. If nothing else, the theory of evolution has underlined this factor in our consideration of the world. And even in cosmology, we see evolution – change amounting to increase in complexity and organization with time – occurring. Therefore, the evidence for God acting through creation in a subtle manner is there for us to consider and study.

This is not to claim that God completely disallows Himself the option of directly interacting with the created realm. We have examples of this in miracles but we also see that miracles are not the norm but the exception. It is exactly the marvel of miracles that they are rare.

So, having said this much, what can we say that is positive about the relationship between evolution and faith? Is there nothing in which they share a commonality and which will enhance our understanding of the world? Let me just raise a few points for our consideration.

First of all, there are zealots on both sides of the argument who muddy up the water with simplistic and sometimes, exaggerated, statements.

Contrary to the groundless statements of people such as Dawkins, the theory of evolution has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God or His participation in creation. In fact, as some theologians in the nineteenth century stated, evolution opens up a new consideration as to how God interacts with what He created. They said that God can act directly through the performing of miracles – which He does from time to time. But they also said how much more marvelous it is that God could make a creation that could change itself and develop – in other words, evolve. He could seed creation with the power to change and grow and develop through the inherent laws of nature.

We must learn to curb our avariciousness for certainty. We are told time and again to live through faith and faith implies that our knowledge is incomplete. With the question of the relationship between evolution and faith there is much that is uncertain. However, as I stated above we can search for elements of commonality.

It is striking that this immense universe of ours consists of only 92 elements and by far the largest bulk consists of two elements – hydrogen to the extent of approximately 75% and helium is present in the amount of 24%. The remainder of elements constitute 1% of the known universe. This points out the underlying simplicity that goes to the formation of our world and this is true as well of the biosphere which relies on a handful of building blocks. We know, for example, only twenty amino acids are used in building all the varieties of biological species.

Chance is used but with limitations. There is an immense universe of possibilities in the biosphere but they do have constraints (just think back to the number of vertabrae in moles and giraffes we listed in a previous letter). The vast majority of possibilities do not lead to fruitful results but end up in dead ends.

The possibilities that do work seem to direct the process towards greater and greater complexity. This is an undeniable empirical observation. Several questions can be raised. Why is this so? Answer – we do not know. Why does matter go to greater and more complex structures? Answer – we do not know. And let me ask a question that I have never seen even raised but it is simply accepted unquestionably. Why is survival of paramount importance for organisms? It is claimed by evolutionists that survival is the driving force underlying evolution but why should this be so? The answer is fairly clear for humans – who have clear intentionality and purpose – but for species such as bacteria, there seems to be no answer. These are questions raised by evolution but cannot be answered by evolution. But by even asking these questions, evolution is driving us to seek answers elsewhere.

It is interesting that as complexity arises, there is no dependence on novelty but instead there is the use of pre-existing blocks which are rearranged to give novel and necessary structures. There seems to be parsimony in the operation of the universe which is unusual if it is, again, all random and totally chance dependent.

The concept of microevolution is rarely the bone of contention as we see bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics thereby giving empirical support for microevolution. But as far as macroevolution goes, strong evidence is lacking and there are definite disagreements here.

There is something that is referred to as the Cambrian explosion. This was a giant leap in innovation, with the sudden appearance of animals sporting novel features such as shells, skeletons, legs and antennae. This evolutionary frenzy lasted between 5 and 10 million years, which may seem as a great span of time to us, but in the overall picture of geological time, this is a relatively short interval.

This biological ‘big bang’, as the Cambrian explosion has been called, occurred about 530 million years ago and since then, there have been no basic changes in the body plans other than those that were developed then. The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms, leading to the Cambrian explosion, will no longer wash. The gradualism proposed by Darwin that somehow new species arise with gradual step-like changes as the mechanism for evolution is in trouble. It seems that the Darwinian description of evolution is far too incomplete and needs to be modified.

As far as macroevolution is concerned, the jury is still out as to the mechanism of developing species. The fossil records and the absence of transitional species in terms of evidential fossils puts into question whether the concept of macroevolution even occurred. But the problem here is that if it didn’t, then how did these various species arise? To say that God created them directly is not really a satisfactory answer in light of what we have learned about God’s interaction with creation and His respect for the freedom of creation.

One of the most important contributions of science to our understanding of existence is that it has forced us to rethink our relationship to the world. It has pointed out to us a fact that was often forgotten in the past, that Creation, all of Creation and not just Man, has freedom and God respects it. Any discussion of the relationship between the theories of evolution and faith must take this into account.

In concluding, I would like to return to Chesterton.

Turning a beggar from the door may be right enough, but pretending to know all the stories the beggar might have narrated is pure nonsense; and this is probably the egoism which thinks that self-assertion can obtain knowledge. A beetle may or may not be inferior to a man – the matter awaits demonstration; but if he were inferior by ten thousand fathoms, the fact remains that there is probably a beetle view of things of which a man is entirely ignorant. If he wishes to conceive that point of view he will scarcely reach it by persistently revelling in the fact that he is not a beetle. The most brilliant exponent of the egoistic school, Nietzsche, with deadly and honourable logic, admitted that the philosophy of self-satisfaction led to looking down upon the weak, the cowardly, and the ignorant.

We need to curb our gluttony for certainty at almost any price. We need to be humble in our approach to God, and also, very importantly, in our approach to the world, to creation, to all creatures. We may never have any final and definitive answer to the questions which haunt us. There is always that edge of uncertainty that torments us. That is why we are called upon, time and time again, to have faith, a faith which is not synonymous with ignorance, but a faith which realizes the limits of our knowledge.

The lowly beetle, in a certain sense, is a reminder of the richness of a creation which has more than thirty two thousand species of orchids, which dazzles us with a riotous richness and variety, seemingly for no practical purpose but for the glorification of beauty. Whether we shall forever remain entirely ignorant of what a beetle or any other ‘lowly’ creature thinks, is open to discussion, but we should never lose our amazement at the world that is out there because if we lose our amazement, we are close to dying.

We cannot prove the existence of God – thankfully – but we can also see that neither we, nor anyone else, in spite of their erudition, can claim there is no God. Above all else, faith is a gift that we are free to accept or to turn away from, to our great and terrible loss. If we turn away from faith then we will turn to the ‘Blind Watchmaker’, that Dawkins writes of, and descend into bitterness and confusion and despondency. But on the other hand, through faith, we may prefer to remove the dark glasses from the supposed blind watchmaker, and remove them from ourselves, and allow ourselves then to be amazed at what we can see – the rich majesty of creation and the One who brought it into being.

Sincerely,
Bar-Abbas